• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Xbox boss speaks on rumored PlayStation service tiers/consolidation

Agreed. if it was such a good business model both Sony and Nintendo would follow MS with their own day one games services in a heart beat.

Lets not sugar coat things shall we? MS was forced to put their not so appealing commercially and below than average reviewed 1st party games day one on Gamepass due to the Xbox one failing to sell compared to the competition. It was out of desperation, not design. You can't sell software if you didn't sell hardware. Enter Gamepass.

Gamepass is most probably a money sink that only Ms's deep war chest can sustain. That is why they always hide the profits made (or didn't make) in their financials.
 

Markio128

Member
I’ll put my neck out and say that it ain’t happening. Only one company has the money to spend billions on a software house, then include their games in a budget subscription service. And said subscription service is not cutting into sales of the games developed by competitors, so what is the point?
I’m going to hazard a guess in that Sony will start to offer a similar subscription to Nintendo, in offering old classics as part of an additional tier to PS+.
 
I certainly hope Sony doesn't move towards day 1 release of their blockbuster IPs. Production value and overall quality would certainly take a hit. I hate to say it, but so far this has been very apparent with the release of Xbox games, perhaps with the exception of Forza Horizon. I'm sure some will disagree with my position but that's how I see it as of now. You are simply not getting GOW, Horizon, Uncharted, quality games via a subscription model. Would love to be proven wrong in the future, though. There are so many strange choices that Microsoft has made from my perspective, but I guess if their customers are fine with them becoming the Netflix of gaming, then it makes a bit more sense.
Yeah because Hellblade 2 looks really cheap 🙄
 

kingfey

Banned
Agreed. if it was such a good business model both Sony and Nintendo would follow MS with their own day one games services in a heart beat.

Lets not sugar coat things shall we? MS was forced to put their not so appealing commercially and below than average reviewed 1st party games day one on Gamepass due to the Xbox one failing to sell compared to the competition. It was out of desperation, not design. You can't sell software if you didn't sell hardware. Enter Gamepass.

Gamepass is most probably a money sink that only Ms's deep war chest can sustain. That is why they always hide the profits made (or didn't make) in their financials.
That is just horrible take. And reek of super Bias.
 

reksveks

Member
Re: the first thing i was going to say.

To Xbox, add purchased games to xcloud as a way of competing and syncing of qr states
 

kingfey

Banned
No hes right

Sony and Nintendo cant afford what Ms doing (putting their new game in subscription services)

Development cost etc will suffer heavy losess

Only microsoft xbox can afford that
I understand that they can't afford it, since it takes alot of money to run that service.
Its just the other stuff that undermines his point.
 

Papacheeks

Banned
Yeah because Hellblade 2 looks really cheap 🙄

Hellblade 1 was made with a small budget, small team, and not using top of the line mo-cap. Hellblade 2 hbas a much larger budget, and more people on the project. But its still no where near what Halo, Gears costs in terms of Production/Development costs. Let alone anything Sony makes.
 
Hellblade 1 was made with a small budget, small team, and not using top of the line mo-cap. Hellblade 2 hbas a much larger budget, and more people on the project. But its still no where near what Halo, Gears costs in terms of Production/Development costs. Let alone anything Sony makes.
What's the cost of HB2 then? You seem to know all the numbers? Or are you as I suspect just speculating?
 
Will be the biggest failure in PS history. GAF users have been telling us for years they don't like "renting" their games and subscriptions services are bad
 
I think Sony is better off adding value to PS+/Now by including additional media content, e.g., Crunchyroll and Sony Movies. The games are kinda part of the PlayStation branding and as long as people are OK in paying for them it makes sense to keep as it is.
 
I just want to be able to play PS5 exclusive titles on my PS4. I have a friend that plays MS Flight Sim on his Xbox One and has no desire to pick up a Series system due to streaming through Game Pass.

It would also be the superior option for cross-gen support: keep native versions on PS5/Xbox Series, stream cloud versions to PS4/XBO.
 

ChiefDada

Member
Yeah because Hellblade 2 looks really cheap 🙄
Absolutely not. Hellblade looks amazing. But I'm not talking about graphics, I'm referring to the whole package. IIRC, many complained the first title was all show with minimal substance. What they managed to accomplish was impressive for such a small studio. I'm curious to see how the sequel evolves, especially under game pass model.
 

skit_data

Member
We’ll see, I have my doubts personally. Maybe tiered PS+ with additional games but I don’t see them putting all new 1st party releases on the service.

I don’t think they will if they don’t see the need to do it or if they have data that it would indeed be making more money than their current model.
 

Three

Member
That would also allow them to retain original MRSP on digital titles even longer, so they effectively get more revenue per copy sold in the longer term with a contractual game-based subscription model. And if a user skips a payment? Mark it as an infraction on their account and revoke some privileges. If they do it too many times, just ban/lock their account altogether and they have to pay a fee in order to get access back to it and content purchased with that account.
This sounds like it would be a legal nightmare. You're talking about contract laws. I don't think Sony would do day one releases for their big tentpole single player games but I can see them going towards GaaS, Mtx riddled multiplayer games and smaller AA releases.
 

Lupin25

Member
This place will be a glorious read the day that happens. So many quotes will be brought into that thread lol

Mr. Vindicative lol…

I don’t envision Sony doing this until their walled-off, traditional model actually fails (console sales)…

Which it never has, while continuing to culminate.

Probably next generation.
 
Last edited:
I just want to be able to play PS5 exclusive titles on my PS4. I have a friend that plays MS Flight Sim on his Xbox One and has no desire to pick up a Series system due to streaming through Game Pass.

It would also be the superior option for cross-gen support: keep native versions on PS5/Xbox Series, stream cloud versions to PS4/XBO.

This sounds like it would be a legal nightmare. You're talking about contract laws. I don't think Sony would do day one releases for their big tentpole single player games but I can see them going towards GaaS, Mtx riddled multiplayer games and smaller AA releases.

But it isn't that much different in practice to what cable providers, satellite providers, ISPs etc. already do, right? It's basically like a per-game VOD broken up into monthly installments.

Think back to Blockbuster or Hollywood Video days where if you skipped out on returning a video you rented, you'd have to pay a late fee, possibly cover the cost of the item, and eventually if you kept returning things late or not at all you'd have your membership voided. Same thing here just with digital items and accounts now.
 
Last edited:

Lognor

Banned
Phil Spencer would know better than you all, so he might be right. Sony copied Microsoft's strategy around PC releases so why not? We'll probably start seeing day one releases from Sony on PC as well.
 
Agreed. if it was such a good business model both Sony and Nintendo would follow MS with their own day one games services in a heart beat.

Lets not sugar coat things shall we? MS was forced to put their not so appealing commercially and below than average reviewed 1st party games day one on Gamepass due to the Xbox one failing to sell compared to the competition. It was out of desperation, not design. You can't sell software if you didn't sell hardware. Enter Gamepass.

Gamepass is most probably a money sink that only Ms's deep war chest can sustain. That is why they always hide the profits made (or didn't make) in their financials.
preach GIF
 

Concern

Member
Mr. Vindicativre lol…

I don’t envision Sony doing this until their walled-off, traditional model actually fails (console sales)…

Which it never has, while continuing to culminate.

Probably next generation.


There's no telling what they'll do. Just a year ago people were laughing at the thought of pc ports yet now we have Horizon, GoW, and Uncharted collection going to pc. And with that we've already seen some opinions flip flop.

Will be no different if and when Sony does a gamepass competitor.
 

Chukhopops

Member
No hes right

Sony and Nintendo cant afford what Ms doing (putting their new game in subscription services)

Development cost etc will suffer heavy losess

Only microsoft xbox can afford that
Sony could definitely afford it considering their revenue and profit, but I don’t think they need to or want to.

I think it’s just Phil trying to raise the expectations of people on their competitor’s service, especially the Play Anywhere part which we know will never happen for Sony.

Also the idea that you need a huge budget to make good games is stupid.
 

Edgelord79

Gold Member
Kind of amazing what's happening if you think about it. Microsoft has managed to leverage GamePass as a mechanism to make Sony respond. It's been so effective in raising Xbox in the marketplace, that it's impossible for Sony to ignore, at least from their analysts point of view (they wouldn't be doing this otherwise).

The problem for Sony is that they will be a full generation behind with their service offerings. This means going through the growing pains Microsoft endured. They will also encounter very stiff competition from an established competitor (Microsoft) with deep pockets, whereas Microsoft never had to do that.

It's not like Sony is high and dry, they have a fantastic first party lineup and are far and away the market leader. But we know how quickly that can change by ignoring the market trends. It's a bit of a mess for Sony to be honest.
 
I certainly hope Sony doesn't move towards day 1 release of their blockbuster IPs. Production value and overall quality would certainly take a hit. I hate to say it, but so far this has been very apparent with the release of Xbox games, perhaps with the exception of Forza Horizon. I'm sure some will disagree with my position but that's how I see it as of now. You are simply not getting GOW, Horizon, Uncharted, quality games via a subscription model. Would love to be proven wrong in the future, though. There are so many strange choices that Microsoft has made from my perspective, but I guess if their customers are fine with them becoming the Netflix of gaming, then it makes a bit more sense.

Flight Sim, Forza, Halo infinite, psychonauts 2, plus released this year was Deathloop, which would have gone on gamepass had it not been for pre existing contracts. All that in one year. And they were all quality titles which received much praise.

No need for your concern. What quality titles did sony release last year? That's concerning.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. if it was such a good business model both Sony and Nintendo would follow MS with their own day one games services in a heart beat.

Lets not sugar coat things shall we? MS was forced to put their not so appealing commercially and below than average reviewed 1st party games day one on Gamepass due to the Xbox one failing to sell compared to the competition. It was out of desperation, not design. You can't sell software if you didn't sell hardware. Enter Gamepass.

Gamepass is most probably a money sink that only Ms's deep war chest can sustain. That is why they always hide the profits made (or didn't make) in their financials.

So are Netflix, Disney+, HBO Max and the like also money sinks created to prop up failing DVD, Blu-Ray and movie ticket sales?

I'm not saying everything you just posted is wrong; in some ways GamePass was made as a feature to give back to loyal Xbox players when the platform was at its weakest. But this kind of argument of yours is completely reductionists and also ignores the fact that given Microsoft's services-orientated model they would have EVENTUALLY done something like GamePass anyway, and their general company philosophy for services has been driven by opportunities in cloud markets (a blue ocean opportunity), not out of failing from products like Windows.

Whatever mixture of factors there were for GamePass's creation, the more important thing is if the product has since come to serve their purpose. Given they've said it's sustainable for them (granted, that doesn't mean it's profitable, or at least massively profitable), then it's at least halfway to satisfying its goal. It was a change they had to do in order to help the platform, and it's been doing that pretty well.
 

Papacheeks

Banned
What's the cost of HB2 then? You seem to know all the numbers? Or are you as I suspect just speculating?

unless the team grew 3x its size, the plan to make something within a modest budget was and is still one of their things they continue to due. They are also working on multiple titles within the studio. I just know from what they shared during Hellblade one development their approach to experimental development.

Seems that same/similar approach is happening with HB2:

Not saying it does not have a big budget, but its not in the same league as Halo Infinite in terms of it's budget/dev time/studio size ect.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
With Sony's first party sales numbers, I think one could argue that people do by multiple Sony first party games.
Maybe, but as a whole cant be much more.

PS4 has 120 million systems. If you add up all the sales of GOW, LOU, Horizon, UC, Spiderman etc.... does it even hit 120M? If it does that means the average PS4 owner buys 1 first party exclusive. And not all those copies will even be at regular price as every publisher dumps off games for $40, $30 or $19.99.

The more gamers buying 2, 3, or 8 first party exclusives means a shit load of gamers buying zero exclusives.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. if it was such a good business model both Sony and Nintendo would follow MS with their own day one games services in a heart beat.

Lets not sugar coat things shall we? MS was forced to put their not so appealing commercially and below than average reviewed 1st party games day one on Gamepass due to the Xbox one failing to sell compared to the competition. It was out of desperation, not design. You can't sell software if you didn't sell hardware. Enter Gamepass.

Gamepass is most probably a money sink that only Ms's deep war chest can sustain. That is why they always hide the profits made (or didn't make) in their financials.
Thats such a terrible take
Flight Sim, Forza, Halo infinite, psychonauts 2, plus released this year was Deathloop, which would have gone on gamepass had it not been for pre existing contracts. All that in one year.
Busch Beer GIF by Busch
 

laynelane

Member
Reading post here is really confusing.

So is $70 a year subscription is worth more then $70 per game?

From my own understanding, I would make more money just selling games, but posters in this thread are saying that the subscription would be worth more to Sony, because Microsoft is doing it????

Huh?

It is confusing. And for some reason, only Sony has to compete with GamePass. Nintendo never enters the discussion despite, like Sony, sticking to a traditional model for selling their first party games.
 

Papacheeks

Banned
Flight Sim, Forza, Halo infinite, psychonauts 2, plus released this year was Deathloop, which would have gone on gamepass had it not been for pre existing contracts. All that in one year.

No need for your concern. What quality titles did sony release last year? That's concerning.

nice drive by baiting.

They released some good games, but yes Microsoft in 2021 had a great year. Just like 2022 Is going to be a great year for Sony.

So what your saying is MS cloud infrastructure isn't secure? You can imagine the lawsuits can't you?

Kid has no clue. You are wasting your time.
 
Last edited:

poodaddy

Member
Nah I think if they push promo, and release higher budget quality titles more often they will be able to compete. Also gamepass has a fault in it. Sony tells you when games leave while gamepass does not.

Sony has a bigger catalogue than Xbox and can use that to an advantage.


Gamepass has a Games Leaving Soon section. They send you notifications about the games leaving soon on the PC app, the phone app, and on the Xbox dashboard. You can view them at any time.

Whatcha talking about? Or are ya just spewing?
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
It is confusing. And for some reason, only Sony has to compete with GamePass. Nintendo never enters the discussion despite, like Sony, sticking to a traditional model for selling their first party games.
Because Sony's model is a lot closer to MS's. And Nintendo sells tons of games still at regular price and still selling years later at full price. Nintendo's game selling strategy, port strategy and online are as 180 as you can get vs. Sony and MS.

Sony and MS have similarities:

- Lots of similar third party games
- Similar system power
- Paid online
- PS+/GWG
- PS Now/Game Pass, where these sub plans can play on PC
- PC ports for both

The key difference in services between them is GP has first party day one games, frequent third party and indie games day one (more B-tier) and more recent games. While Sony's sub services skew to older games.

So it's come down to whether gamers think day one games will show on Sony sub plans.
 

nemiroff

Gold Member
unless the team grew 3x its size, the plan to make something within a modest budget was and is still one of their things they continue to due. They are also working on multiple titles within the studio. I just know from what they shared during Hellblade one development their approach to experimental development.

Seems that same/similar approach is happening with HB2:

Not saying it does not have a big budget, but its not in the same league as Halo Infinite in terms of it's budget/dev time/studio size ect.

I'm not going to butt in either way on you guys' argument, just wanted to say that for what it's worth after a loose search "Youtube" says that Hellblade was developed by a team of 20 people (not necessarily all employees engaged of course). Google search says Ninja Theory has currently has 120 employees (2020), linkedin says 135. Ninja Theory website says 50-200 employees. Didn't find actual number in the HB2's team, but it kinda seems like it's safe to say it's more than 3x HB1 during crunch.
 
Last edited:

ZywyPL

Banned
these companies have resources nintendo and Sony dont have

What they don't have tho is the studios, brand recognition, IPs, legacy library and proven track record. Like really, just Sony/Nintendo announcing a subscription service would already leave those big tech companies into dust, before even executing it, because people would know damn well what to expect, what are the IPs, the studios and so on, while Google with Stadia has shown more enough that deep pockets don't mean anything if you're releasing a gaming service... without games.

Sony: "Alright, God of War Ragnarok, Horizon Forbidden West and Gran Turismo cost 100M to produce, each. That's 300M right there...not counting marketing. We could release each one of these games for 70$ / 80€ and break-even during our first week of release...but you know what? Let's put them all back to back on our 5$ subscription service where not even 50M people are subscribed. Our investors will be much happier like this"

Gaf: "Finally! Poor dying Playstation brand finally saw the light"

You're missing the greater picture in this kind of distribution model, as per your example - 50M x 10$ x 12 months = 6B yearly revenue, no matter if/how many games people play. So for example - a group of let's say 15M people will play GT7, but everyone who's not interested in it at all still technically pays for it. The other group of people will want to play Spider-Man 2, cool, but those GT guys still pay for it. And so on. The whole trick is to build up this kind of userbase first, but once that happens it's actually so much healthier model because it allows the companies/devs to take risks, to experiment, to be creative, this is the kind of model where games like Days Gone can indeed be a full trilogy, instead of relying on those mentioned 1st week full price sales and be dead if they don't hit the mark.
 

Roxkis_ii

Gold Member
Maybe, but as a whole cant be much more.

PS4 has 120 million systems. If you add up all the sales of GOW, LOU, Horizon, UC, Spiderman etc.... does it even hit 120M? If it does that means the average PS4 owner buys 1 first party exclusive. And not all those copies will even be at regular price as every publisher dumps off games for $40, $30 or $19.99.

The more gamers buying 2, 3, or 8 first party exclusives means a shit load of gamers buying zero exclusives.

What I didn't mention in my first post is how a subscription service would also lower the perceived value of games. Once you put your games on a sub, most people won't buy that game at MSRP or even sales prices.

So not only would Sony likely make less money on games upfront, they also lose their ability to sell them at retail prices or even get extra customers or interest with game sales.

How many people would have cared about days gone coming out a second time if it was day and date on a sub service?

On another note, as a painter, I'm a fan of that username!
 
Top Bottom